Research Article The Development of a Critical Care

Research ArticleThe Development of a Critical Care Resident ResearchCurriculum: A Needs Assessment

Sangeeta Jain,1 Kusum Menon,2 Dominique Piquette,3 Ronald Gottesman,4

James Hutchison,5 Elaine Gilfoyle,6 and Canadian Critical Care Trials Group7

1Department of Pediatrics, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T3B 6A82Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Room 3446, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 8L13Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room D108, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M54Division of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Montreal Children’s Hospital, 1001 Decarie Boulevard,Room B06.3834.2, Montreal, QC, Canada H4A 3J15Neuroscience and Mental Health Research Program, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute,555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X86Section of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Children’s Hospital, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary,AB, Canada T3B 6A87Centre de Recherche du CHUM, Tour Viger, 900 rue Saint-Denis, Room R04-470, Montreal, QC, Canada H2X 0A9

Correspondence should be addressed to Elaine Gilfoyle; [email protected]

Received 19 October 2015; Revised 13 April 2016; Accepted 19 May 2016

Academic Editor: Jack Kastelik

Copyright © 2016 Sangeeta Jain et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background. Conducting research is expected from many clinicians’ professional profile, yet many do not have advanced researchdegrees. Research training during residency is variable amongst institutions and research education needs of trainees are not wellunderstood. Objective. To understand needs of critical care trainees regarding research education.Methods. Canadian critical caretrainees, new critical care faculty, program directors, and research coordinators were surveyed regarding research training, researchexpectations, and support within their programs. Results. Critical care trainees and junior faculty members highlighted many gapsin research knowledge and skills. In contrast, critical care program directors felt that trainees were prepared to undertake researchcareers. Major differences in opinion amongst program directors and other respondent groups exist regarding preparation fordesigning a study, navigating research ethics board applications, and managing a research budget. Conclusion. We demonstratedthat Canadian critical care trainees and junior faculty reported gaps in knowledge in all areas of research. There was disagreementamongst trainees, junior faculty, research coordinators, and program directors regarding learning needs. Results from this needsassessment will be used to help redesign the education program of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group to complement localresearch training offered for critical care trainees.

1. Introduction

Research is a mandatory activity for all Royal College ofPhysician and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) training pro-grams, including the field of critical care. Trainees in criticalcare “are expected to participate in a basic or clinical researchproject” and must “demonstrate a basic understanding ofbiostatistics, study design, protocol writing, and manuscriptpreparation. . .under the direction of a scientist or CriticalCare Medicine specialist” [1, 2]. This has become an integralpart of training programs since we know that a better

understanding of reported studies is linked to improvedpatient care and improvement in the academic mind of thephysician [3]. In addition and on a more practical level,having published research is an advantage when applyingfor further training or employment [4]. Various barriers tosuccessful research amongst trainees have been described inthe literature, including lack of interest, lack of time, and poorunderstanding of research methods [3, 5].

In Canada, some individual residency programs organizea departmental-specific research course or have traineeswho participate in university-wide research courses. These

Hindawi Publishing CorporationCanadian Respiratory JournalVolume 2016, Article ID 9795739, 8 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9795739

2 Canadian Respiratory Journal

experiences are variable due to lack of resources of eachindividual program or courses not specific to critical care.Organizations that are not directly affiliated with officialtraining programs may also be tasked to provide researchtraining. The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG)is an internationally recognized group of critical care clin-icians and researchers who collaborate to conduct high-quality critical care-based research. The CCCTG currentlyoffers a “Resident Research Day,” where CCCTG membersteach about various aspects of research (such as ethics incritical care research) followed by critical care residents andother critical care research trainees presenting their researchprojects for feedback from their peers and members of theCCCTG and Canadian Critical Care Translational BiologyGroup. This research day was designed for critical caretrainees based on data from a focus group conducted withCCCTG faculty and trainee members (unpublished data).However, it has been several years since the implementationof this training curriculum; it is unknown whether therehas been a change in local resources available to trainees orwhether the needs of trainees have evolved. One aspect of themission of the CCCTG is to “mentor and support aspiringinvestigators and future leaders in critical care research”(http://www.ccctg.ca/About-Us/Strategic-Directions.aspx).

When developing a new curriculum (or revising anexisting one), performing a needs assessment is the necessaryfirst step [6]. Without a needs assessment, any curriculumdeveloped risks devoting unnecessary resources to areasalready mastered by the learner and/or paying insufficientattention to areas of particular weakness.

Through a needs assessment, we aim to identify anddescribe what the learning needs are for research educationin critical care in Canada. We plan to target both per-ceived needs (from the learners themselves) and unperceivedneeds (from program directors, new faculty researchers, andresearch coordinators) regarding trainees’ needs. Specifically,we aim to gain insight into (1) perceived and unperceivedknowledge gaps about the research process, (2) barriersto successful research during residency training, and (3)tools and skills that would be useful for trainees beforethey take on faculty positions with research requirements.The ultimate aim of this project is to obtain informationuseful for the development of a research curriculum targetingtrainees currently involved in research, with the objective toencourage participation in research as part of their futurecareers.

We hypothesize that there will be differences betweenthe perceived and unperceived needs related to critical careresearch education, which will be highlighted when com-paring responses amongst trainees, program directors, newfaculty, and research coordinators.

2. Methods

We surveyed various stakeholders including adult and pedi-atric critical care residents, new academic critical care faculty,critical care research coordinators, and critical care residency

program directors during the July 2012 to June 2013 trainingyear.

A voluntary, confidential, self-administered online surveyin English (via Survey Monkey�) was sent to eligible par-ticipants. Critical care residents were recruited by gatheringtheir contact information from their program directors. Wealso contacted the Critical Care Department Heads acrossthe country to identify new academic faculty (within 5 yearsof their appointment). Research coordinators were contactedvia the CanadianCritical Care ResearchCoordinators Group.The research team contacted potential subjects by sending outan electronic letter explaining our research goals with a linkto the survey attached. In order to maximize response rate,we emailed participants ahead of the survey and also sent twofollow-up reminders after the initial survey was sent out, fora total study period of six months.

The questionnaire for trainees (see Appendix A inSupplementary Material available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9795739 for the full document) consisted of 4domains: demographic information, current research activ-ities, previous research training (including the CCCTGresearch day), and a self-assessment of knowledge with vari-ous aspects of research (e.g., developing a research question).A similar survey was sent out to university-affiliated criticalcare faculty who are within 5 years of completing theircritical care fellowship. Questionnaires were also distributedto program directors and research coordinators.

Data from Survey Monkey were downloaded to and ana-lyzed in Microsoft Excel�. Quantitative data were analyzedwith descriptive statistics (mean andmedian). For descriptiveanalyses, we used actual number of respondents for thedenominator. We collapsed categories where appropriate tosummarize responses in a meaningful manner.Comparisonsweremade between different respondents; however statisticalcomparisons were not pursued due to low numbers. Writtencomments were summarized and grouped into themes.

Ethics approval was obtained from the Conjoint HealthResearch Ethics Board of the University of Calgary.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics. Surveys were sent to a total of 235potential participants with 86 completed surveys returned,yielding an overall response rate of 37%. Table 1 describesthe summary of survey responses within each category ofrespondent. Table 2 describes the demographics of the criticalcare trainees who responded to the survey.

3.2. Trainee Responses. Of the traineeswho responded, 60.7%identified an interest in doing research as a part of their futurecareers in critical care. At the time of the survey, 86% oftrainees were currently involved in a research project. Of the28 respondents, the majority (75%) had projects representingclinical research, whereas a much smaller percentage waspursuing medical education-based projects or translationalmedicine projects (7% and 4%, resp.).

Trainees noted that formal research training during theircritical care fellowships provided them with a good overview

Canadian Respiratory Journal 3

Table 1: Number of survey respondents, response rate, and totalresponse rate based on identified position.

Title Number ofsurveys sent

Number ofrespondents Response rate

Research coordinators 60 38 63%Program directors 21 9 43%Junior faculty 40 11 27%Trainees 114 28 25%Total 235 86 37%

Table 2: Demographics of critical care trainees who responded tothe survey.

Description of trainee Percentage of respondentsProgram stream

(i) Royal College stream 86%(ii) Clinical Fellow stream1 14%

Training program(i) Adult 71%(ii) Pediatric 29%

Specialty prior to critical care(i) Anesthesia 18%(ii) General surgery 7%(iii) Internal medicine 39%(iv) Pediatrics 25%(v) Other (cardiac surgery,

emergency) 11%

Prior advanced degree (master’s, Ph.D.)(i) Yes 14%(ii) No 86%

1Clinical Fellows are generally trainees who come from other countries withthe sole purpose of education.

of study design and ethics in research but did not give themthe skills to be proficient in the specific areas of databasemanagement andmanaging a research team (Figure 1). Over-all, trainees felt that, in order to assume future professionaland research responsibilities, they would benefit from moretraining in most areas of research, but especially in statisticsand writing grant proposals (Figure 2). Trainees felt mostcomfortable with their ability to navigate ethics in research.

3.3. Faculty Member Responses. Faculty members whoresponded to the survey had all been trained in Canadiancritical care programs. Of faculty members surveyed, 36%had advanced degrees in areas such as epidemiology, pub-lic health, and health administration. Eighteen percent ofrespondents spent a majority of their nonclinical time onresearch and had protected time to do so. Forty percentof faculty participated in formal research education outsideof the CCCTG Research Day. In these research educationprograms, faculty identified areas of research not generally

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stud

yde

sign

Stat

istic

s

Dat

abas

em

anag

emen

t

Ethi

cs in

rese

arch

Budg

et

Man

agin

g a

rese

arch

team

Writ

ing

gran

tpr

opos

als

Man

uscr

ipt

prep

arat

ion

Rese

arch

care

erpl

anni

ng

Research activity

Strongly agreeAgreeNeutral

DisagreeStrongly disagree

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%)

Figure 1: Response of critical care trainees to the question: “Formalresearch training duringmy fellowship in Critical Care has providedme with the skills to be proficient in the following areas of research.”

Stud

yde

sign

Stat

istic

s

Dat

abas

em

anag

emen

t

Ethi

cs in

rese

arch

Budg

et

Man

agin

g a

rese

arch

team

Writ

ing

gran

tpr

opos

als

Man

uscr

ipt

prep

arat

ion

Rese

arch

care

erpl

anni

ngResearch activity



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%)

Figure 2: Response of critical care trainees to the survey question: “Ifeel that, in order to assumemy future professional responsibilities, Iwould benefit frommore training in the following areas of research.”

touched upon: managing a database management, develop-ing budgets, and writing grant proposals. After formal train-ing, faculty members still did not feel proficient in databasemanagement, creating a research budget or managing aresearch team (Figure 3).

3.4. Program Director Responses. Program directors whoresponded to the survey represented nine of 21 (43%)adult and pediatric critical care residency programs fromacross Canada. Fifty-six percent of respondents represented


Stud

yde

sign

Stat

istic

s

Dat

abas

em

anag

emen

t

Ethi

cs in

rese

arch

Budg

et

Man

agin

g a

rese

arch

team

Writ

ing

gran

tpr

opos

als

Man

uscr

ipt

prep

arat

ion

Rese

arch

care

erpl

anni

ng

Research activity



Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%) 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 3: Junior facultymembers’ response to the question: “Formalresearch training duringmy fellowship in Critical Care providedmewith the skills to be proficient in the following areas of research.”

medium-sized programs (six to eight critical care trainees),22% of respondents represented smaller programs (three tofive trainees), and 22% represented larger programs (greaterthan eight trainees). All program directors noted that morethan 50% of their residents were involved in scholarly workand benefited fromprotected time during residency to pursueresearch.This protected time ranged from four weeks to overfour months throughout the duration of the 2-year trainingprogram. The expectation at the end of residency for all butone program for which information was available is thatcritical care trainees would have completed a study and/orpresented a poster/abstract at a meeting. Program directorsgenerally had a positive perception of critical care trainees’readiness to perform various aspects of research by the endof their training but also identified managing a researchteam and database management as areas of relative weakness(Figure 4).

3.5. Research Coordinator Responses. Forty-two percent ofsurveyed research coordinators stated that they work withcritical care trainees and junior faculty. Research coordina-tors echoed that trainees and junior faculty were least profi-cient in the areas of managing a research team, developing abudget, and managing a database (Figure 5).

Contrary to the feeling of program directors, researchcoordinators felt that trainees and junior faculty neededto develop proficiency in study design and setting up aresearch budget. Contrary to the feelings of both programdirectors and trainees, research coordinators felt that traineesand junior faculty also required more training on ethics inresearch (Figures 6, 7, and 8).

3.6. CCCTG Research Course. Thirty percent of programdirectors felt that the CCCTG research course was valuable

Stud

yde

sign

Stat

istic

s

Dat

abas

em

anag

emen

t

Ethi

cs in

rese

arch

Budg

et

Man

agin

g a

rese

arch

team

Writ

ing

gran

tpr

opos

als

Man

uscr

ipt

prep

arat

ion

Rese

arch

care

erpl

anni

ng

Research activity

0102030405060

90

7080

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%)



Figure 4: Response by program directors to the survey question:“I believe that graduates of our fellowship are comfortable withperforming the following research activities.”

Stud

yde

sign

Stat

istic

s

Dat

abas

em

anag

emen

t

Ethi

cs in

rese

arch

Budg

et

Man

agin

g a

rese

arch

team

Writ

ing

gran

tpr

opos

als

Man

uscr

ipt

prep

arat

ion

Rese

arch

care

erpl

anni

ngResearch activity

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%)



Figure 5: Response of research coordinators to the question:“Within my institution, Critical Care fellows and junior facultymembers are well trained in the following areas of research.”

or very valuable, with an additional 20% feeling that it wassomewhat valuable. Eighteen percent of faculty surveyedhad participated in the CCCTG education program in thepast; nonparticipants cited unawareness of the program orinability to get time off clinical work to attend the programas reasons for not attending the course.

Trainees felt that the CCCTG would be a valuableresource in terms of research training, especially for researchcareer mentorship as well as critiquing of research proposals.In terms of information delivery, 40% of program directors


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%)

Stronglyagree

Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree

Research coordinatorsProgram directors

Figure 6: Comparing responses of program directors and researchcoordinators regarding trainees’ abilities in applying appropriatestudy design when developing a research project.

Stronglyagree



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%)

Figure 7: Comparing responses of program directors and researchcoordinators regarding trainees’ abilities in navigating ethics inresearch.

and previous attendees felt that longitudinal in-person semi-nars with a web-based component, such as access to onlinestatistics teaching, would be the most beneficial. However,they recognized the challenge of obtaining time away fromclinical duties and monetary perspective.

One theme that came out from many of the qualitativecomments was mentorship. Most of the respondents who areinvolved in research identified having a research supervisor.The level of involvement of the supervisor varied significantlyand the amount of support the trainee felt he/she had alsovaried. Program directors most commonly cited increased

Stronglyagree



Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

(%) 40

50

35

45

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 8: Comparing responses of program directors and researchcoordinators regarding trainees’ abilities in creating and managinga research budget.

availability of mentorship and easier access to statisticalsupport as needed resources for trainees.

4. Discussion

Our study demonstrated that trainees and junior facultymembers still felt inadequately trained in several research-related areas following their critical care fellowships.This wasin contrast with the expressed views of program directorswho felt that trainees were generally well prepared for under-taking research. In addition, we found that there were somediscrepancies between the areas of perceived need for furthertraining between the trainees/junior faculty and the researchcoordinators surveyed. The discrepancy between programdirectors and research coordinators may be due to programdirectors trying to ensure that trainees learn general skills asa scholar whereas research coordinators are focused specif-ically upon research. Although almost half of coordinatorswho responded indicated they worked with trainees and/orjunior faculty, the extent to which they worked with themwas likely variable. Further work would have to be done toclarify this relationship and its possible link to the opinions ofcoordinators regarding research educational needs of traineesand junior faculty.

The specific areas of need identified by trainees and juniorfaculty included database and research team management,how to manage a research team, and how to prepare aresearch budget, statistical analysis, and grant writing. Inaddition, research coordinators identified study design andresearch ethics as further areas in which research trainingwas necessary for critical care trainees and junior faculty.Further study is required tomore thoroughly understandwhythis difference of opinion exists. For example, what are thegaps that the research coordinators perceive trainees have


with research ethics? This may prove to be an opportunityfor research-focused organizations, such as the CCCTG,which could focus on areas of research training that are notwell addressed currently by formal research education. TheCCCTG could develop a longitudinal or rotating seminarseries based upon these perceived gaps, adding value tothe current CCCTG research curriculum. In addition, giventheir detailed knowledge about the research process, researchcoordinators may be recruited by the CCCTG as a valuableresource in educating trainees about real-life operationalissues related to conducting research.

To date, there are no studies describing critical careresearch education. Studies related to research education ingeneral have suggested that factors that were most predictiveof positive research experiences during training and contin-uation of a research career included intellectual satisfactionand training grants [7]. With this in mind, the CCCTG couldtake a role in announcing available grant opportunities andhelping trainees with their applications.

Another theme that has become prominent in the lit-erature regarding research education is one of mentorship.Mentors are important not only in the undertaking of aresearch project, but also in helping trainees shape researchcareers [7]. Our finding of the importance of mentorshipwas echoed in the results of a recent survey of criticalcare medicine trainees. These authors found that traineesexpressed a need for more mentorship of nonclinical activ-ities, including research [8]. The CCCTG, along with criticalcare programs, could consider developing a network ofresearchers who would be interested in mentoring fellowswith various parts of their research and who could also behelpful in research career mentorship. Currently, the CCCTGidentifies mentors for junior faculty, but there is a clear needto extend this partnership to trainees and to further formalizethe mentorship process. Because a majority of trainees wereidentified as having a research supervisor, the role of thismentor may not need to be in helping with the finer details ofthe research project, but more focusing on ways to constructa meaningful research career. It can be assumed that manyresearch skills are honed through experience rather thanvia formal education, such as managing a research teamand creating a budget. This makes longitudinal mentorshipeven more important as trainees are transitioning fromprimary work in designing a study to more challenging andmanagerial aspects of research. Another role for CCCTGmentors would be to expose trainees to researchers who excelin various different styles of research, such as KnowledgeTranslation, to give trainees a wide example of types ofresearch available.

Even though a majority of trainees were involved in aresearch project during their critical care residencies, only60% were interested in pursuing research in their futurecareer. A similar trend was found amongst junior facultymembers, with only 20% of those surveyed currently in aresearch-based position. It is unclear whether this representsthe whole group of trainees and junior faculty members,but it would be important to pursue so as to understandbetter the barriers to a successful research career. It is unclearwhether this is due to waning interests, lack of protected

time, competing clinical careers, or other barriers. In order togain a deeper understanding about the data gathered above,hosting focus groups of trainees at their respective sites or viateleconference would be a good adjuvant.

As a majority of respondents felt that a longitudinalresearch training program would be the most beneficial toimproving research knowledge and skills, further work needsto be done to identify how curriculum content could bebest disseminated (e.g., online seminars and live webinars) inspite of workload and monetary constraints. Considerationmust be given to time available for these opportunities, givenall the other responsibilities that critical care trainees have.Currently in Canada, this training is 2 years in length; forpeople interested in a research career, training beyond these2 years may be required.

This study’s major limitation is the fact that there weredifferences in representation within the respondent groups.In particular, research coordinators were better representedthan critical care trainees. In addition, our absolute numberof respondents was small, especially in the trainee and juniorfaculty categories, yielding a response rate less than the 50–75% desired [9, 10]. Having robust data representing theopinions of junior facultymembers would have been valuableas we felt that they would have the most insight into whattheir needs were transitioning from training to being aclinician and researcher. Future studies are needed to targetinput from these groups. Further, we do not know to whatextent respondents and nonrespondents differ, introducing apotential source of bias into our results. Another limitationwould be that faculty in nonacademic centres and communitycritical care physicians were not included in this study. Thesephysicians may argue that intensive research training duringfellowshipwould not have beennecessary or valuable for theircareer progression. This information would be importantto determine whether a dedicated CCCTG research coursewould be appropriate or necessary for all trainees. Finally, fur-ther engagementwith programdirectors is planned regardinghow they envision the CCCTG research curriculum com-plementing their locally available educational opportunities.We plan to create a summary of all the available researcheducational opportunities from around the country so thatindividual trainees could potentially access the resources theyneed to prepare them for a future research career.

5. Conclusion

Research education is an important part of training forall critical care physicians. With the information from oursurvey, we envision a research curriculum that complementstraining provided locally so that all research education goalsare met by the end of training. Although we focused on theneeds of critical care trainees in Canada, these data maybe more widely applicable to trainees of all postgraduateprograms in Canada or internationally.

As it has in the past, the CCCTG can continue to bea valuable resource for the education of current and futurecritical care trainees to help prepare them for a career inresearch.


Appendix

The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Neill Adhikari, M.D. (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre),Eyad Althenayan, M.D. (Western University), PatrickArchambault, M.D. (CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins-CHAUHotel-Dieu de Levis), Sean Bagshaw, M.D. (University ofAlberta), Andrew Baker, M.D. (St. Michael’s Hospital),Ian Ball, M.D. (Western University), Jane Batt, M.D. andPh.D. (St. Michael’s Hospital), Karen Bosma, M.D. (LondonHealth Sciences Centre), Gordon Boyd, M.D. and Ph.D.(Kingston General Hospital), Laurent Brochard, M.D. andH.D.R. (St. Michael’s Hospital), Karen Burns, M.D. (St.Michael’s Hospital), Jeff Burzynski, M.D. (University ofManitoba Health Sciences Center), Francois-Martin Carrier(Centre Hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal), EmmanuelCharbonney, M.D. and Ph.D. (CSSSTR (Trois-Rivieres)Centre Hospitalier Affilie Universitaire), Michael Chasse,M.D. and Ph.D. (Centre de Recherche du CHU de Quebec),Karen Choong, M.B. (McMaster University), Bryan Coburn,M.D. andPh.D. (UniversityHealthNetwork-TorontoGeneralHospital), Deborah Cook, M.D. (McMaster University),Nick Daneman, M.D. (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre),Frederick D’Aragon, M.D. and Ph.D. (Centre HospitalierUniversitaire de Sherbrooke), Sonny Dhanani, M.D.(Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario), Peter Dodek, M.D.(Center for Health Evaluation & Outcome Sciences), JohnDrover, M.D. (Queen’s University), Guillaume Emeriaud,M.D. and Ph.D. (CHU Sainte-Justine), Shane English,M.D. (Ottawa Health Research Institute), and Eddy Fan,M.D. and Ph.D. (Mount Sinai Hospital). Catherine Farrell,M.D. (CHU Sainte-Justine), Niall Ferguson, M.D. (MountSinai Hospital), Patricia Fontela, M.D. and Ph.D. (McGillUniversity Health Center), Jennifer Foster, M.D. (LondonHealth Sciences Centre), Rob Fowler, M.D. (SunnybrookHealth Sciences Centre), Alison Fox-Robichaud, M.D.(Hamilton Health Sciences), Charles Francoeur, M.D. (CHUde Quebec-Hopital Enfant-Jesus), Elaine Gilfoyle, M.D.(Alberta Children’s Hospital), Martin Girard, M.D. (CentreHospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal), Ronald Gottesman,M.D. (McGill University Health Center), Robert Green,M.D.(Dalhousie University), Donald Griesdale, M.D. (VancouverGeneralHospital), Anne-MarieGuerguerian,M.D. andPh.D.(Hospital for Sick Children), Richard Hall, M.D. (DalhousieUniversity), Betty Jane Hancock, M.D. (Children’s Hospital),Paul Hebert, M.D. (Centre Hospitalier de l’Universite deMontreal), Ahmed Hegazy, M.B. (University of WesternOntario), Margaret Herridge, M.D. (University HealthNetwork-Toronto General Hospital), Jamie Hutchison, M.D.(Hospital of Sick Children), Tim Karachi, M.D. (McMasterUniversity), Constantine Karvellas, M.D. (University ofAlberta), Brian Kavanagh, M.D. (The Hospital for SickChildren), Michelle Kho, Ph.D. (McMaster University),Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. (British Columbia Children’sHospital), Karen Koo, M.D. (McMaster University), AndreasKramer, M.D. (Foothills Medical Centre), Arnold Kristoff,M.D. (McGill University Health Center), Jim Kutsogiannis,M.D. (Royal Alexandra Hospital), Jacques Lacroix, M.D.

(CHU Sainte-Justine), Francois Lamontagne, M.D. (CentreHospitalier de l’Universite de Sherbrooke), Francois Lauzier,M.D. (CHU de Quebec, Hopital de l’Enfant-Jesus), OsamaLoubani, M.D. (Dalhousie University), Sheldon Magder,M.D. (McGill University Health Center), John Marshall,M.D. (St.Michael’s Hospital), ClaudioMartin,M.D. (LondonHealth Sciences Centre), Victoria McCredie, M.D. and Ph.D.(Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre), Lauralyn McIntyre,M.D. (Ottawa Health Research Institute), James McNally,M.D. (Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario), MaureenMeade, M.D. (McMaster University), Nav Mehta, M.D.(Health Sciences North), Sangeeta Mehta, M.D. (MountSinai Hospital), Tina Mele, M.D. and Ph.D. (London HealthSciences Centre), Kusum Menon, M.D. (Children’s Hospitalof EasternOntario), SrinivasMurthy,M.D. (BritishColumbiaChildren’s Hospital), John Muscedere, M.D. (KingstonGeneral Hospital), Simon Oczkowski, M.D. (McMasterUniversity), Joe Pagliarello, M.D. (Ottawa Hospital), MelissaParker, M.D. (McMaster University), Dominique Piquette,M.D. and Ph.D. (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre),Bram Rochwerg, M.D. (Juravinski Hospital), Aimee Sarti,M.D. (Ottawa Hospital), Damon Scales, M.D. and Ph.D.(Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre), Andrew Seely, M.D.(Ottawa Health Research Institute), Jason Shahin, M.D.(McGill University Health Center), Michael Sharpe, M.D.(London Health Sciences Centre), Jeffrey Singh, M.D.(University Health Network-Toronto Western Hospital),Tasnim Sinuff, M.D. and Ph.D. (Sunnybrook Health SciencesCentre), Yoanna Skrobik, M.D. (McGill University HealthCenter), Maude St-Onge, M.D. and Ph.D. (CHU de Quebec,Centre Antipoison du Quebec), Asumi Sugiura, M.D. (TheHospital for Sick Children), Eric Sy, M.D. (Regina GeneralHospital), Jennifer Tsang, M.D. (St. Catharines GeneralHospital), Marisa Tucci, M.D. (CHU Sainte-Justine), AlexisTurgeon, M.D. (CHU de Quebec, Hopital de l’Enfant-Jesus),KeithWalley,M.D. (St. Paul’s Hospital),MatthewWeiss,M.D.(Universite Laval), Dave Wensley, M.B. (British ColumbiaChildren’s Hospital), David Williamson, Ph.D. (Hopital duSacre-Coeur de Montreal), Brent Winston, M.D. (Universityof Calgary), Davinia Withington, B.M. (McGill UniversityHealth Center), Hannah Wunsch, M.D. (SunnybrookHealth Sciences Centre), Ryan Zarychanski, M.D. (CancerCare Manitoba), and David Zygun, M.D. (University ofAlberta).

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the CCCTG Grants andManuscripts Committee for the coordination of the review ofthe paper. The authors would also like to thank the trainees,faculty members, research coordinators, and program direc-tors who completed the survey.


References

[1] The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada,Objectives of Training of Adult Critical Care Medicine,http://www.royalcollege.ca/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y2vk/mdaw/∼edisp/tztest3rcpsced000888.pdf.

[2] The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada,Objectives of Training in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine,http://www.royalcollege.ca/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y2vk/mdaw/∼edisp/tztest3rcpsced000891.pdf.

[3] M. B. Rothberg, “Overcoming the obstacles to research duringresidency: what does it take?” The Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, vol. 308, no. 21, pp. 2191–2192, 2012.

[4] W. W. Souba, K. K. Tanabe, M. A. Gadd, B. L. Smith, and M.S. Bushman, “Attitudes and opinions toward surgical research:a survey of surgical residents and their chairpersons,” Annals ofSurgery, vol. 223, no. 4, pp. 377–383, 1996.

[5] O. Takahashi, S. Ohde, J. L. Jacobs, Y. Tokuda, F. Omata, and T.Fukui, “Residents’ experience of scholarly activities is associatedwith higher satisfaction with residency training,” Journal ofGeneral Internal Medicine, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 716–720, 2009.

[6] J. Grant, “Learning needs assessment: assessing the need,”British Medical Journal, vol. 324, no. 7330, pp. 156–159, 2002.

[7] G. Zahtz, A. Vambutas, H. M. Hussey, and L. Rosen, “Residentresearch experience and career path association: a nationalsurvey of recent otolaryngology graduates,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 151, no. 1, pp. 46–51, 2014.

[8] M. St-Onge, K. Mandelzweig, J. C. Marshall, D. C. Scales, andJ. Granton, “Critical care trainees’ career goals and needs: aCanadian survey,” Canadian Respiratory Journal, vol. 21, no. 2,pp. 93–95, 2014.

[9] J. R. Draugalis, S. J. Coons, and C. M. Plaza, “Best practices forsurvey research reports: a synopsis for authors and reviewers,”The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 72, no.1, article 11, 2008.

[10] K. E. A. Burns, M. Duffett, M. E. Kho et al., “A guide for thedesign and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians,”Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 179, no. 3, pp. 245–252, 2008.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of


Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of



Disease Markers


BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of



Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity


PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of



Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of


Diabetes ResearchJournal of



Research and TreatmentAIDS


Gastroenterology Research and Practice


Parkinson’s Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Documents

Research Article The Development of a Critical Care